About your Search

20130318
20130326
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)
president bill clinton, as the president who signed the act into law, i have come to believe that doma is not accurate. i have asked jeffrey toobin to explain this. >> all we can say is that president clinton believes it was a mistake and whatever justification he had in 1996 was not good enough, and he, like virtually the entire democratic party now, repudiates it and they want to see it overturned. >> this is not a thumb's up or thumb's down decision, right? this is the supreme court, and so what are we looking at here? >> well, this is a bit of a rubik's cube, and both the defense of marriage act case and the challenge to proposition 8, the case that the law that bans same-sex marriage in california. the defense of marriage act case refers to the federal law that says that the federal government will not recognize same-sex marriages even in states where it is legal. so people, and gay people who are married in new york and new england and all of the states where it is legal, they cannot file joint tax return, and they can't get social security survivor's benefits and if the court up
wrote, as the president who signed the act into law, i have come to believe that doma is in fact imcompatible with our constitution. he said, back then it was less of a condemnation of legal marriage and a bit of legal maneuveri maneuvering. i asked jeffrey toobin to explain that. >> all we can say for sure is bill clinton thinks it was a mistake to sign doma. he wrote an op ed a couple of weeks ago saying whatever justification he may have had in 1996 wuntd good enough. and he, like virtually the entire democratic party, repudiates it and wants to see it overturned. >> this isn't a thumbs-up or thumbs-down decision. this is the supreme court. what are we looking at here? >> this is a bit of a rubik's coupe, the defense of marriage act and the case of proposition 8, the ban that prohibits same-sex marriage in california. the federal law says the federal government will not recognize same-sex marriages even in states where it's legal. so people -- gay people who are married in new york and new england and all of the states where it's legal, they can't file joint tax returns or get
's ridiculous. >> what the bill does -- >> reporter: now the defense of marriage act, also known by doma first passed by congress and signed by president clinton in 1996, is being challenged at the supreme court. >> it's being asked to decide whether as to whether or not congress can pass a law that treats same-sex couples who are already married under the laws of their state different from opposite sex couples. >> reporter: defenders of the law say congress has as much right as the states to make its own definition of marriage. >> doma is important because congress said it was important. i mean, we sent our elected representatives to washington, d.c., and they chose to say that marriage is one man and one woman for purposes of federal law. >> reporter: and conservatives say the founding fathers never contemplated gay marriage. >> because it's clearly not what anyone understood as marriage at the time of the framing of the constitution. >> reporter: still, same-sex families pay taxes and don't get the same benefit and the issue with doma really gets complicate federal they have children who ar
's proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage. the second case involves the defense of marriage act known as doma. that law defines marriage as between a man and a woman. right now people are lining up outside of the supreme court trying to get front-row seats to history. will the supreme court say i do to same-sex marriage or decide to punt? key players made their arguments today on cnn's "state of the union." >> we immediate to keep the debate live. americans on both sides of the issue are deeply invested on this debate of marriage and don't need a 50-state solution presented by the supreme court when our democratic institutions are perfectly capable of handling the issue. that's what the court will december glide the united states supreme court since the 1880s has 14 times described marriage as a fundmental right. when we are talking about this issue going before the court, we are talking about fundamental notions of people, justice, and liberty. >> >> supreme court's ruling may not come until june but the justices question during argument this week may reveal how they are leaning. bring in no
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)